Dismissing Climategate, EPA Moves Forward on CO2 Regulation

To surprisingly tepid applause, EPA head Lisa Jackson just announced that she has signed “two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”

One was of course the anticipated Endangerment Finding, which states that current and projected concentrations of six so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

The other was the Cause or Contribute Finding, which finds that the combined emissions of the 6 GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

This certainly suggests that light-duty vehicle GHG regulation remains their primary goal. But Jackson also mentioned potential future permit requirements for stationary sources of GHG under section 112 of the CAA. And as that might affect everything from schools and hospitals to larger private homes, that’s where the most serious potential for government command-and-control lies.

Only a fool would doubt that the announcement was intended to coincide with goings-on 4000 miles to the east in Copenhagen, where Obama would otherwise arrive at the table next week rudely empty-handed of anything but empty promises.

But it was another scheduling issue Jackson was immediately challenged on. And she responded to the question about the finding’s timing in relation to the CRU controversy by claiming the unit to be but one of many sources of the indisputable scientific evidence that humans cause climate change, adding that:

“Nothing in the hacked emails undermines the science on which this decision was based.”

Where’s Joe Wilson when you need him?

To surprisingly tepid applause, EPA head Lisa Jackson just announced that she has signed “two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”

One was of course the anticipated Endangerment Finding, which states that current and projected concentrations of six so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

The other was the Cause or Contribute Finding, which finds that the combined emissions of the 6 GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

This certainly suggests that light-duty vehicle GHG regulation remains their primary goal. But Jackson also mentioned potential future permit requirements for stationary sources of GHG under section 112 of the CAA. And as that might affect everything from schools and hospitals to larger private homes, that’s where the most serious potential for government command-and-control lies.

Only a fool would doubt that the announcement was intended to coincide with goings-on 4000 miles to the east in Copenhagen, where Obama would otherwise arrive at the table next week rudely empty-handed of anything but empty promises.

But it was another scheduling issue Jackson was immediately challenged on. And she responded to the question about the finding’s timing in relation to the CRU controversy by claiming the unit to be but one of many sources of the indisputable scientific evidence that humans cause climate change, adding that:

“Nothing in the hacked emails undermines the science on which this decision was based.”